Full-Frame cameras are the object of desire by most photographers, professionals and amateurs. There is an almost unanimous belief that an SLR camera, if not Full-Frame, is not good.
In today's post I would like to provoke a debate and see what you think about this type of cameras. But first, let's give this some context.
WHAT IS A FULL-FRAME CAMERA?
Mobile phone, a luxury. Very healthy, it served to do weights.
In the past, when there were only analog cameras, the size of the film, those 35mm, was a standard. And just as it happened with mobile phones, which were getting smaller and smaller (do you remember the mobile phones that when they came out weighed 2 kilos?), The cameras also evolved and, when becoming digital, replaced the film with The digital sensor
The photographic industry was able to reduce the size of these sensors and consequently the bodies of the cameras, without noticing any deterioration in the quality of the photos. This was accompanied by an evolution in the sensors, which went from a few megapixels to figures of 16 and 21 megapixels for amateur photographer cameras. The same with the quality of the sensor: its performance in low light situations was improving, offering greater sensitivity to light, lower noise, and better and more precise pixels. Robert Capa would have freaked him out if he had access to a compact amateur camera , I don't tell you if it's a DSLR.
This reduction in the size of the SLR camera sensor has had a positive impact on their price, which has allowed many users to access a market that was reserved only for the wealthiest. This is possible thanks to these medium and small sensors (for example the APS-C size sensors) that most amateur SLR cameras carry today.
Despite this evolution, many look at their SLR camera with grief and dissatisfaction as this is not a Full Frame. By not carrying a sensor with a large size equivalent to that of a 35mm film such as those used in analogs.
I want you to take sides in this debate. Do you need a Full Frame camera to be a good photographer? Yes, yes, the photo is not taken by the camera, but by the photographer, but still who knows, if part of the merit has Full Frame, it must be admitted. Or what?
ADVANTAGES OF A FULL FRAME
In a Full Frame SLR camera, the entire frame of the lens is used. In them, a wide-angle lens is really "wide-angle", unlike the SLRs of smaller sensors where, due to the size of the sensor, the sides of the frame remain uncovered, and a wide angle or a fisheye dazzle a lot.
A Full Frame has the largest pixels which results in less noise and better photos at high ISO sensitivities.
DISADVANTAGES OF A FULL FRAME
A telephoto lens is less telephoto. Basically there is also the opposite effect to the first point mentioned in the advantages section. Due to the size of the sensor, a 200mm telephoto lens gives you that level of "zoom" say, those 200mm, which is great, but with a smaller sensor reflex that same 200mm lens becomes about 300mm, so suddenly.
In a Full Frame the optical imperfections of the objectives are more visible around the objective, that is, at the edge of the frame. Full Frame cameras, when capturing all the light projected by the lens, are not able to eliminate these aberrations (chromatic, vignetting) that accompany some lenses. With a smaller sensor camera, on the other hand, these faults are automatically eliminated since the sensor alone can only capture the center of the image.
